Adjuncts and Minimalist Grammars

  • Meaghan Fowlie
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8612)


The behaviour of adverbs and adjectives has qualities of both ordinary selection and something else, something unique to modifiers. This makes them difficult to model. Modifiers are generally optional and transparent to selection while arguments are required and driven by selection. Cinque [4] proposes that adverbs, functional heads, and descriptive adjectives are underlyingly uniformly ordered across languages and models them by ordinary Merge or selection. Such a model captures only the ordering restrictions on these morphemes; it fails to capture their optionality and transparency to selection. I propose a model of adjunction with a separate Adjoin function that allows the derivation to keep track of both the true head of the phrase and the place in the Cinque hierarchy of the modifier, preventing inverted modifier orders in the absence of Move.


adjoin minimalist grammars adjectives adverbs functional projections ordering optionality 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Adger, D.: A minimalist theory of feature structure 30, 06–08 (2007),
  2. 2.
    Bernardi, R., Szabolcsi, A.: Optionality, scope, and licensing: An application of partially ordered categories. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17(3), 237–283 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chomsky, N.: The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cinque, G.: Adverbs and functional heads: a cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford studies in comparative syntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cinque, G.: The syntax of adjectives: a comparative study. Linguistic Inquiry monographs. MIT Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fowlie, M.: Order and optionality: Minimalist grammars with adjunction. In: The 13th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language, p. 12 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frey, W., Gärtner, H.M.: On the treatment of scrambling and adjunction in minimalist grammars. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Formal Grammar (FGTrento), Trento, pp. 41–52 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graf, T.: The price of freedom: Why adjuncts are Islands. Slides of a talk given at the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 12–15 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harkema, H.: A characterization of minimalist languages. In: de Groote, P., Morrill, G., Retoré, C. (eds.) LACL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2099, pp. 193–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keenan, E.L., Stabler, E.P.: Bare Grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kobele, G.M., Retoré, C., Salvati, S.: An automata-theoretic approach to minimalism. In: Rogers, J., Kepser, S. (eds.) Model Theoretic Syntax at ESSLLI 2007. ESSLLI (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rizzi, L.: Locality and left periphery. In: Belletti, A. (ed.) Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3, pp. 223–251. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sportiche, D.: Division of labor between merge and move: Strict locality of selection and apparent reconstruction paradoxes. LingBuzz (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stabler, E.: Derivational minimalism. In: Retoré, C. (ed.) LACL 1996. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1328, pp. 68–95. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meaghan Fowlie
    • 1
  1. 1.UCLA LinguisticsLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations